This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Bugzilla vs 5.0 milestone
- From: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "gcc at gnu dot org" <gcc at gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 10:03:32 +0100
- Subject: Re: Bugzilla vs 5.0 milestone
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <55134E7E dot 3000409 at oracle dot com> <CAFiYyc2OJbaAi1ewtm+EHKx9x+1bSwYVYMPDP58FcMfqkYdFMg at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150326085228 dot GT1746 at tucnak dot redhat dot com>
On 03/26/2015 09:52 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 09:36:30AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 1:10 AM, Paolo Carlini <email@example.com> wrote:
sorry if I missed part of the discussion about the new numbering scheme and
the answer to my question is already clear from that: why we do have 5.0 as
Milestone in Bugzilla instead of 5.1?!?
Yeah, well ... details. We chose to not mass-change those after the numbering
scheme was agreed to. But yes, technically the milestones should be 5.1 now.
Ok, I understand ;)
Supposedly if we just rename the 5.0 milestone to 5.1 milestone and
update the queries it could work. Though, 5.0 milestone isn't
completely meaningless, it means plan to fix it already before the
In fact I had the same thought, but I find annoying the inconsistency
with the old numbering scheme, where the identifiers of Milestones match
All in all, if you ask me, assuming the ask isn't too much annoying, I
would be in favor of the renaming...